alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 22, 2010 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 9- 15 61 3

D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 50 7- CV-RS GUERRY WAYNE HE RTZ, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us W ALTER A. MCNEIL, CHARLES J. CR IST, JR .,

Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (Oct ob er 2 2, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS , Cir cu it Ju dg es .

PER CURI AM:The so le is su e o n wh ic h a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y was g ran te d i n t hi s cap it al cas e is whet he r th e Fl or id a Su pr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on th atHert z was no t de ni edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l i n re ga rdto th e p res en ta ti on of m en ta l he al th m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce at th e p en al ty stat e, Hert z v . Sta te , 94 1 So . 2d 10 31 , 10 37 -4 5 (F la .20 06 ), was c on tra ry to or a n u nr eas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law, as de te rm in edby the Supr em e Co ur t o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, 2 8 U.S.C. ¶ 2 25 4( d) (1 ). In de nyin g Her tz ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f ha be as co rp us , th e d is tri ctco ur t s et

ou t al l o f th e fac ts rel at in g t o t hi s i ss ue , all of He rtz ’s arg um en ts ab ou t i t, an d a ll of th e rea so ns th os e arg um en ts lac k m eri t. See Hert z v . McNei l, No . 4: 06 cv 50 7- RS, 2 00 9 WL 31 61 81 3, at *1 5- 31 (N.D. Fla. Se pt . 25 , 20 09 ). Havi ng read th e br ie fs an d t he rel ev an t p art s o f th e rec or d, an d h av in g l is te ne d t o o ral arg um en t, we fu ll y ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco ur t t ha t t he Flo rid a Su pr em e Co ur t’s d eci si on th atHert z’s tr ia l co un se l p ro vi de d re as on ab le pro fes si on al ass is ta nc e dur in g t he pe na lt y st ag e o f hi s ca pi ta l t ria l i s n ot co nt rary to o r an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law. The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s AFF IRM ED.

2
# Map            South Asia.
# EUR-Lex - 12002E205 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E205

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 2: The Council - Article 205 - Article 148 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 148 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0118 - 0118 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0264 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0058 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 2: The Council

Article 205

Article 148 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 148 - EEC Treaty

Article 205

1. Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the Council shall act by a majority of its Members.

2. Where the Council is required to act by a qualified majority, the votes of its Members shall be weighted as follows:

>TABLE>.

For their adoption, acts of the Council shall require at least:

- 62 votes in favour where this Treaty requires them to be adopted on a proposal from the Commission,

- 62 votes in favour, cast by at least 10 members, in other cases.

3. Abstentions by Members present in person or represented shall not prevent the adoption by the Council of acts which require unanimity.
# EUR-Lex - 11992E082 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992E082

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - PART THREE : COMMUNITY POLICIES - TITLE IV : TRANSPORT - ARTICLE 82 /* CODIFIED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY */ **

*
Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0028 *

Article 82

The provisions of this Title shall not form an obstacle to the application of measures taken in the Federal Republic of Germany to the extent that such measures are required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic affected by that division.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50495

STEPHEN WAYNE OSTIGUY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C.; JP MORGAN CHASE &

COMPANY, 

 Defendants - Appellees

 ----------------------------------------------------

 consolidated with 17-40855

 ---------------------------------------------------

REBECCA GAIL FRAZIER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant 

v. 

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C.; CHASE BANK USA, N.A., 

 Defendants - Appellees

 ----------------------------------------------------

 consolidated with 17-50761

 ---------------------------------------------------

BELINDA A. SAUNDERS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50495 Document: 00514642151 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2018
No. 17-50495

2

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C., 

 Defendant - Appellee

 ----------------------------------------------------

 consolidated with 17-50960

 ---------------------------------------------------

MACEL CAROLYN FILLMORE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, L.L.C., 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Courts

for the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas

USDC No. 5:16-CV-790

USDC No. 2:16-CV-1273

USDC No. 1:16-CV-525

USDC No. 1:16-CV-1042

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.6.

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 17-50495 Document: 00514642151 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2018
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 183 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 55166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7934]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Announcement of Performance Review Board Members

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 5 CFR 430.310 requires agencies to publish notice of 
Performance Review Board appointees in the Federal Register before 
their service begins. This notice announces the names of the members of 
the Bureau of Industry and Security's Performance Review Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gay Shrum, Director of Administration, 
Bureau of Industry and Security, at (202) 482-1058, Room 6622, 
Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Performance Review Board 
is to review and make recommendations to the appointing authority on 
performance management issues such as appraisals, bonuses, pay level 
increases, and Presidential Rank Awards for members of the Senior 
Executive Service.
    The Acting Under Secretary for Industry and Security, Mark Foulon, 
has named the following executives to be appointed to the Bureau of 
Industry and Security Performance Review Board:
    1. Matthew Borman, Deputy Under Secretary for Export Administration 
(new).
    2. Wendy Wysong, Deputy Under Secretary for Export Enforcement 
(new).
    3. Dawn Leaf, Chief Information Officer (new).
    4. Gay Shrum , Director of Administration (new).
    5. John Phalen, Director, Office of Management and Organization, 
Department of Commerce (Outside Reviewer new).

    Dated: September 15, 2006.
Mark Foulon,
Acting Under Secretary for Industry and Security.
[FR Doc. 06-7934 Filed 9-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 648

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 648 appear at 62 FR 14651, Mar. 27, 1997.

#### § 648.18 Standardized bycatch reporting methodology.

NMFS shall comply with the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM) provisions established in the following fishery management plans by the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology: An Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional Fishery Management Councils, completed March 2015, also known as the SBRM Omnibus Amendment, by the New England Fishery Management Council, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center: Atlantic Bluefish; Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; Atlantic Sea Scallop; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog; Atlantic Herring; Atlantic Salmon; Deep-Sea Red Crab; Monkfish; Northeast Multispecies; Northeast Skate Complex; Spiny Dogfish; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass; and Tilefish. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy of the SBRM Omnibus Amendment from the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (*www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov,* 978-281-9300). You may inspect a copy at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.*

[85 FR 47113, Aug. 4, 2020]
HOLTZMANVOGELJOSEFIAK PLLC 

Auf>nwvs flt Uiw 

•if SWi.li Hill l.\n»-u 

Siiiic 100 

Wiinciiliin, V'/\ A1li>b 

I>;540.3'M-!S«0» 

i/VSO-MI-SSiW 

May 14, 2013 

I 

I 

Jeff S. Jordan 

Supervisory Attorney 

Complaints Examination & Legal Administration 

Office of General Counsel 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

Jte: MUR 6696 

2] 

BS 

# ' -1 

Dear Mr. Jordan, 

Crossroads GPS is in receipt of your correspondence dated April 26, 201.3, regarding 

CREW's amended complaint in the above-referenced matter. 

C/i 

ZP. 

•ivj * • 

c.-, 

M 

We note that CREW's amended complaint contains a number of minor revisions that are 

not highlighted in any \vay and which required a line-by-line comparison to discern. 

CREW's amended complaint features a different "citizen" complainant with ties to Ohio. 

In the original complaint, Jessica Markley served in this role. For reasons that are not explained, 

she has been replaced by Nicholas Mezlak in the amended complaint. In our first response, we 

noted that "several claims made in the Complaint - including claims regarding the state of mind 

of unknown persons - are so obviously fabricated that it is almost certain that Ms. Sloan and Ms. 

Markley falsely swore to the Verifications submitted with their Complaint.... We also request 

that Ms. Sloane and Ms. Markley be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation into 

whether either or both violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 when they executed their respective 

Verifications and submitted this Complaint." Response (.Ian. 17, 2013) at 2. 

The same is now true of Mr. Mezlak, and we request that he also be referred to the 

appropriate authorities for investigation into whether he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 when he 

executed the Verification included in the amended complaint. In addition, we reiterate our 

request that the appropriate authorities investigate Ms. Markley and her claims, and especially 

Page i of2 

MUR 6696, Response of Crossroads GPS 
the facts and circumstances surrounding Ms. Markley's withdrawal frohi the original complaint, 

and who (at CREW or elsewhere, including Ms. Sloane), proposed, approved or executed the 

removal of Ms. Markley and substitution of Mr. Mezlak, 

The other revisions found in the amended complaint refer to public filings already in the 

Commission's possession, all of which speak for themselves. The amended complaint contains 

no new substantive allegationSj and Crossroads GPS has no further response at this time. 

Sincerely, 

1 

Thomas J. Josefiak 

Michael Bayes 

|i Counsel to Crossroads GPS 

1 

t: 

Page 2 of2 

MUR 6696, Response of Crossroads GPS
WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, INC.

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                   Fiscal Years Ended
                                        1992      1993     1994    1995   1996
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                                  (Dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
 Earnings (loss) from continuing
<S>                                   <C>      <C>       <C>     <C>     <C>
  operations before income taxes      $  (918) $ (6,377) $ 1,772 $ 7,422 $15,175
 Fixed charges from below              22,400    22,322   19,468  23,353  26,755
                                       ------    ------   ------  ------  ------
  Total earnings                      $21,482  $ 15,945  $21,240 $30,775 $41,930
                                       ------    ------   ------  ------  ------
Fixed Charges:
 Interest                             $21,330  $ 21,530  $18,705 $22,485 $25,797
 Interest component of rent expense:
  Total rent expense                  $ 3,210  $  2,375  $ 2,288 $ 2,605 $ 2,875
  Portion considered interest expense     33%       33%      33%     33%     33%
                                       ------   -------   ------  ------  ------
   Interest component                 $ 1,070  $    792  $   763 $   868 $   958
                                       ------   -------   ------  ------  ------
   Total fixed charges                $22,400  $ 22,322  $19,468 $23,353 $26,755
                                       ------   -------   ------  ------  ------

Earnings to Fixed Charges                1.0x      0.7x     1.1x    1.3x    1.6x

Excess Fixed Charges                  $   918   $ 6,377      ---     ---     ---
                                       ======    ======   ======  ======  ======
</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 679
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 679 appear at 61 FR 56438, Nov. 1, 1996; 62 FR 2047, Jan. 15, 1997; 66 FR 27909, May 21, 2001; 67 FR 79739, Dec. 30, 2002; and 77 FR 6502, Feb. 8, 2012.

§ 679.83 Rockfish Program entry level longline fishery. ( a ) *Rockfish entry level longline fishery* — ( 1 ) *Rockfish primary species allocations.* Vessels participating in the rockfish entry level longline fishery may collectively harvest an amount not greater than the total allocation to the rockfish entry level longline fishery as described in Table 28e to this part.
( 2 ) *Participation.* Catcher vessels fishing under a CQ permit must first be checked-out of the Rockfish Program by the catcher vessel cooperative's designated representative to participate in the entry level longline fishery (see § 679.5(r)(8)(i)(B) for check-out procedures).
( 3 ) *Rockfish secondary species allocations.* Rockfish secondary species shall not be allocated to the rockfish entry level longline fishery. Rockfish secondary species shall be managed based on an MRA for the target species as described in Table 10 to this part.
( 4 ) *Opening of the rockfish entry level longline fishery.* The Regional Administrator maintains the authority to not open the rockfish entry level longline fishery if he or she deems it appropriate for conservation or other management measures. Factors such as the total allocation, anticipated harvest rates, and number of participants will be considered in making any such decision.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### Charles A. Currier, appellee, v. Setty Schmideke Teske et al., appellants.

Filed January 16, 1913.

No. 16,859.

Appeal from the district court for Madison county: Anson A. Welch, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*John J. Sullivan*and ill. *D. Tyler,*for appellants.

*William V. Allen*and *Willis E. Reed, contra.*

*24Hamer, J.

The opinion in *Currier v. Teske, ante,*p. 7, is also the opinion in this case, the two cases being heard and determined together in this court.

Reversed.

Sedgwick and Fawcett, JJ., dissent.

Barnes, J., touK no part in this case.
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Chase Bank USA, National Association

Chase Credit Card Master Trust

The undersigned, a
duly authorized officer of Chase Bank USA, National Association (the Bank), as Servicer pursuant to the Fifth Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 19, 2007 (as amended and supplemented from
time to time, the Agreement) between the Bank, as transferor and servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer) and The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York, as trustee, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2008 (the Reporting Period) and of its performance under the Agreement has
been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this 30th day of March 2009.



CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,as ServicerBy:

/s/ Keith W. SchuckName:

Keith W. SchuckTitle:

President
On petitioner’s motion for reconsideration filed May 6,

reconsideration allowed; opinion (127 Or App 739,872 P2d446) modified; Board’s order vacated; reversed and remanded for reconsideration in part; otherwise affirmed August 3, 1994

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Donald Martin, Claimant. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, *Petitioner, v.*Donald MARTIN, *Respondent.*

(92-10346; CA A80804)

877 P2d 1238

Adam T. Stamper and Cowling & Heysell for motion.

Pamela A. Schultz, *contra.*

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Landau, Judges.

WARREN, P. J.

*316WARREN, P. J.

Employer seeks reconsideration of our decision in this case. 127.Or App 739, 872 P2d 446 (1994). We allow reconsideration and modify the disposition.

In our opinion, we vacated the Board’s order that employer reprocess claimant’s claim and affirmed the remainder of the order. Employer points out that the Board’s order had awarded attorney fees based on claimant’s having prevailed on the claims processing issue. Because we vacated the order to reprocess the claim, employer argues that we also should have vacated the award of attorney fees.

On appeal to the Board, employer raised issues concerning whether the referee correctly denied its motion to dismiss the claim, whether it was required to reprocess the claim, and whether sanctions should have been awarded against claimant’s counsel for filing a frivolous hearing request. The Board affirmed the referee’s denial of the motions to dismiss and for sanctions, and the order that employer reprocess the claim. It also awarded attorney fees for claimant’s counsel’s efforts “concerning the motion to dismiss and claim processing issues.”

Employer is correct that the claim processing issue has now been resolved in its favor, and that issue cannot be a basis for an award of attorney fees. However, because the Board’s attorney fee award was based in part on its ruling on the motion to dismiss, which was not challenged on judicial review, we remand for the Board to reconsider the award of attorney fees.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified; Board’s order that employer reprocess the claim vacated; award of attorney fees reversed and remanded for reconsideration; otherwise affirmed.
# EUR-Lex - 11965F/PRO/PRI/00 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11965F/PRO/PRI/00

**TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, PROTOCOL ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, PREAMBLE **

*
Official Journal L 152 , 13/07/1967 P. 0013 *

++++

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES ,

CONSIDERING THAT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 28 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , THESE COMMUNITIES AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK SHALL ENJOY IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE MEMBER STATES SUCH PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AS ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR TASKS ,

HAVE AGREED UPON THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS , WHICH SHALL BE ANNEXED TO THIS TREATY :
Document

Exhibit 10.11
Amendment to
Outstanding 2018 Restricted Stock Unit Awards
under the LivaNova PLC 2015 Incentive Award Plan


This amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of June 15, 2020, hereby modifies each 2018 service-based restricted stock unit (“RSU”) award agreement evidencing a currently outstanding RSU award under the LivaNova PLC 2015 Incentive Award Plan (as permitted pursuant to Section 11.7 of the LivaNova PLC 2015 Incentive Award Plan) as follows:


1.Section 2.2(c) of each outstanding RSU award agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:


“In the event of a Change in Control that occurs following the Grant Date, the RSUs, to the extent not forfeited or otherwise vested immediately prior to such Change in Control, shall become fully vested immediately prior to, but subject to the consummation of, such Change in Control, subject to the Participant’s continuous employment with the Company or a Subsidiary through such Change in Control.”


2.Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Plan and the outstanding Awards thereunder shall remain in full force and effect.


3.This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without reference to principles of conflict of laws.






LIVANOVA PLC






            
Name:  Trui Hebbelinck 
Title:  Chief Human Resources Officer